Ellen gives away dog, was she wrong?

[TabulaRasa]

I saw this clip on yahoo! and wanted to see how everyone else feels about it.

The Ellen DeGeneres Show Television show - The Ellen DeGeneres Show TV Show - Yahoo! TV

When you adopt a dog from an organization like she did, they even do background checks to make sure the pet is going to be in a good home. My aunt and uncle got their dog this way and it really was a big deal. They call referances and everything. I think that Ellen should def not have given the dog away. I love Ellen, she's cool but no matter what once you sign paperwork you have to abide by its rules.

I want to know if you think the pet orginaztion is taking it too seriously or do you think they did what they should have?

I think they did what they had to do because well, pets need to be in loving homes and they deserve background checks. I feel bad that some kids parents don't have the same checks. But anyways, maybe they could find a way to let the new family adopt Iggy. I don't see why they couldn't if they are willing to give him a good home.

 

[nerd4hire]

You see, this is why you need to read contracts before you sign them. When you buy something you shouldn't be signing something allowing the seller to maintain control of the item after you buy it. This is why you don't buy the Vista operating system from Microsoft, and why you don't buy a pet from the Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency in Los Angeles.

Ellen didn't read the contract. She did a dumb thing.

As far as the right and wrong of the situation goes though, those pet nazis piss me off. They turned up at the little girl's house with the police, and dragged Iggy from a crying little girl's hands. It wasn't necessary.

For the amount of energy it took to arrange for police backup to snatch the dog they could have contacted the family, and made sure it was an acceptable home if that was what they really cared about. It wasn't though. They wanted to show all involved who had the real authority. They're a bunch of fascist, bureaucrats, hiding behind a mask of bogus good intentions. They make me want to puke and wish they were in front of me when I did.

BTW there's a poll asking the question "Should Ruby get her dog back?" here.

Ellen DeGeneres' Doggone Nightmare - TMZ.com

So far 195,000 people have voted. 96% think Ruby should get her dog back.

Here's what Iggy would most likely look like going by breed.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

You know, jerks like these should be on the unemployment line or doing something useful - like, say, flipping burgers at McD's - and so should the cops who went along with this (no, they didn't have to. I can't count the number of times I've seen cops refuse to back up a valid complaint; unmitigated stupidity on the complainants' part certainly ought to be a basis for minding one's own business.)

Having said that, you'd think anyone in Ellen's profession would know enough to read a contract. But, then, there are certain actions that one might reasonably expect not to result in unmitigated stupidity...

 

[white avenger]

I am not going to comment on Ellen DeGenera's performance in this matter other than to say that, for the most part, in my opinion, that is exactly what it is, and a very poor one at that. She should be held accountable for her actions. SHE violated the contract that she signed with the animal shelter, SHE made the mistake of adopting an animal she very obviously had neither the skill nor the patience to train and raise properly, and SHE, not the people from the animal shelter, is directly and completely responsible for all of the grief and heartbreak resulting from her irresponsible actions.

My friends, a dog is not a toy. It isn't something that you pick out at the store, take home, put in a closet, and just take out when you feel like playing with it. A pet, ANY pet, is a living thing, and if you take the responsibility of raising it, you have assumed a 24/7 job, a job that should not be shirked or delegated to someone else. There is no living thing on this planet as eager to please its master as a dog is. They guard us, warn us of impending danger, and sometimes even give their lives for us with not the slightest hesitation, and all that they ask for that devotion is our love and guidance. Ellen obviously had no concept of what it took to properly raise and train a puppy, so at the first difficulty she eagerly shirked her responsibility and commitment to the animal. Certainly the people to whom she gave the puppy gave it the kind of loving home it deserved. Children and puppies form a bond very easily. Separating them once that bond is formed is both cruel and tragic, but the villain here is not the animal shelter and its employees, the one responsible for all of this heartbreak is the woman who never should have adopted the dog in the first place.

People who work in animal shelters and with Animal Control are not monsters, and they should not be betrayed as such. They are almost exclusively people who do what they do because they love animals and hate to see them abused. These are some of the most dedicated professionals you could ever hope to meet. They are often required to perform tasks that they would not want to do willingly, but those tasks are almost exclusively the enforcement of laws, laws that they may not approve of, but laws that they are sworn to enforce, and for every time they are forced to do something to clear up Ellen's irresponsibility, they perform a hundred acts of kindness toward animals.

With Ms De Genera's resources, finding a way to legally transfer ownership of the puppy would have been a simple thing, and might still be, but we will probably never know for sure, because she will get far more publicity this way when the children and the puppy are re-united, as they almost certainly will be. Let's just hope that everyone involved has learned a valuable lesson from this (no pun intended) dog and pony show.

As for all of the readers of this forum, please let me urge you to strongly consider adopting a pet from your local animal shelter if you are committed to the full time job of that pet's care and maintenance. If you are not absolutely certain that you can raise and train a puppy or kitten properly, consider a young adult or even an older pet, where personality can be determined BEFORE adoption, and be certain in advance that that personality is compatible with your own as well as your life style. Once you have a pet, take it into not just your home, but into your heart as well. You will both receive a blessing with few equals and none greater in this world.

 

[nerd4hire]

How cute. The first thing you tell us is you're not going "comment on Ellen DeGenera's performance in this matter", then you spend the bulk of the post telling how she alone is the one to blame.

Another thing I always get a kick out of is when people want to present the law as this kind of define governance of morality when it suits their purposes, then ignore it's implications when it doesn't.

A pet is legal property. Had she not signed the contract De Generes would have had the legal right to pass ownership to another. It's done all the time for a large variety of reasons. It's the way I got my dog. For the 13 years I had her she was treated like a princess. There's nothing illegal, or immoral about transferring the ownership of pets.

Where De Generes screwed up is she wasn't aware of the full implications of the contract. This also is not unusual. Contracts are written in legalize. Not everybody reads, or understands them. Their full implications are often misrepresented at time of sale. Happens all the time.

De Generes put 3 thousand dollars into a pet she had for 2 weeks. She was a responsible owner. She found the pet was still too much for her, and did what one would expect a responsible owner to do in such a situation. She found a good home for it. Notice nobody is saying the dog wasn't in a loving, caring environment at time of snatching.

OK so now mister "I love the puppies", explain to me how these cold hearted paper-pushing dog-nappers are doing Iggy a favor by snatching him out of the loving home he had finally found himself in.

If Iggy winds up being put down in the animal shelter is your conscience better served?

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

As for all of the readers of this forum, please let me urge you to strongly consider adopting a pet from your local animal shelter if you are committed to the full time job of that pet's care and maintenance. If you are not absolutely certain that you can raise and train a puppy or kitten properly, consider a young adult or even an older pet, where personality can be determined BEFORE adoption, and be certain in advance that that personality is compatible with your own as well as your life style. Once you have a pet, take it into not just your home, but into your heart as well. You will both receive a blessing with few equals and none greater in this world.

Gawrsh, one would get the impression that none of the rest of us have ever been blessed before. I kept my Siberian Husky for thirteen years and preferred her to most humans, but knowing how to treat people is at least as important as knowing how to treat animals. People who can't be bothered to do that shouldn't be bothered to be around them, either...

 

[DarlaFan2011]

I do feel bad for Ellen and the family that Iggy went to but the organization did what they had to do.I agree with need4hire in that you should always read anything and everything before you sign.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

I do feel bad for Ellen and the family that Iggy went to but the organization did what they had to do.

No, they really, really didn't. They could have switched the "adoption" papers; they could have checked out the family to see if they were "acceptable"; they could have done a lot of things, but what they actually did is make a big show of doing what they wanted to do.

 

[Senior Watcher]

i think most everyone has made a solid argument on their point of view and i want to thank tabularasa for finding this story (sometimes i think i get better news on the boards than on the tv).

heres my two cents: rules and regulations are set for a reason. in the case of ellen, i think we can all say that she did the right thing. eventhough it was against contract, she did what was best for the dog. i also think that the adoption agency did the right thing. the reason for me saying that is because there is always that one case where some butthead tries to bend or break the rules to suit their life. lets face it, shoplifting would not be a crime if noone did it. in ellens case, someone at sometime tried to bend the rules to their liking thereby forcing the adoption agency to create a caveat in their documentation that says, "you cant give your animal to someone else once you adopt it."

finally, we also dont know the full policy of the shelter (can anyone find it?). what im saying is that even if they know the animal was given to a good home, they may HAVE to keep the animal for 2 days minimum. of course of just made that up, but you see my point. i dont think the shelter is being difficult or trying to create press, i think they have 'formalities' that they are adhering to.

 

[nerd4hire]

I found a picture of the actual Iggy, at Ellen Degeneres's website where there was 7000 posts on the Iggy situation.

Iggy - The Ellen DeGeneres Show


Iggy - He's in the jailhouse now...

The website of the Pet Nazis who grabbed Iggy from the little girl is down. Too much sudden traffic I'll wager.

 

[Randy Giles]

What a cute little dog. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.....

Oh. Anyway. I agree with N4H here. Those pet people? Should be put to sleep.

 

[jesterjay]

I really don't know what to say regarding this. On one hand I'm sure it's policy, and on the other this is a little dog that got a great home.

I work in an industry where a lot of the time I want to help out our "customers" (it's radio so we really have listeners) but in many occassions I'm legally obligated to the rules of a contest, or procedure and I just can't do anything for them. Oh I'll work every way I can to figure something out, but usually I can't get around this red tape.

As for the cops, I'm sure they had a mandate that they had to go in there and do this, and I'm also sure the cops probably supervised to make sure that there was no violence back and forth between these people and the family - it happens you know.

But as for where I stand on this one...the waters are really muddy...I would just hope the company realizes how stupid Ellen made them look (power of the press and all that) because looking at that listing on Ellen's site there's over 7,000 people who are boycotting that particular organization. A show of good faith would probably be good right now - but I just read that the organization will not be releasing Iggy to the family as the girls are too young. Don't quite know how they figure that.

 

[white avenger]

If I seem less than sympathetic to Ms DeGeneres, it is because I believe that she acted unresponsively in this whole matter. The "performance" I was referring to was her performance in the video, NOT her actual actions concerning the dog and the family she gave him to. It just seemed to me that she was trying to make the law that she agreed to abide by the culprit and make herself the martyr in the whole situation, the only one who cared about the little girl's feelings. As has been pointed out here, a dog is property, and there would seem to be an argument that she had every right to do with her property as she saw fit. I agree that the little girl in question was the one made to suffer, I just place the blame on the irresponsible woman who made a legal commitment, then tried to get out of that commitment in an illegal manner. I don't blame the "mean ol' police officers" who only did their job. Anyone who feels differently than I do may join me in an "agree to disagree" pact and get on with our lives and the happenings of the Buffyverse, or we can argue this matter indefinitely somewhere other than at this forum.

 

[nerd4hire]

Sorry, much as I empathize with your desire for the final word I have to tell you. It's unlikely you're going to get it.

But speaking of final words, is the final paragraph in the transcript at Ellen's site the same as the the end of the video? It goes like this.

That’s the story and that’s why I’m feeling like I am responsible for trying to do something and I did it without reading all the things I should have read. So I’m sorry. ~ Ellen

She didn't read the fine print. She apologized. She took responsibility. Give little Ruby her dog back.

 

[jesterjay]

I put a little more thought into this, as we're airing the story in about an hour and a half...Ellen is kind of nuts. Like on one hand we have Iggy, and she's fighting to keep him with a good home...but on the other hand she kind of just went toe to toe with a company that saves animals! A company that is striving to keep animals in good homes. So now we have over 7,000 people on her blog declaring that this company is bad...well damn!

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I just read all this and I gotta say its pretty pants.

I don't see why people are digging at Ellen.
She adopted a pet, she tried but failed to have it assimilate into her family. She didn't abuse it, she realised that all the best intention in the world is not enough and gave it away TO A CARING FAMILY.

The 'authorities' didn't like this. I expect this is more a publicity thing as its 'Ellen DeGeneres' and this group want some free advertising.

This is total bullcrap, or indeed dogcrap.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

I put a little more thought into this, as we're airing the story in about an hour and a half...Ellen is kind of nuts. Like on one hand we have Iggy, and she's fighting to keep him with a good home...but on the other hand she kind of just went toe to toe with a company that saves animals! A company that is striving to keep animals in good homes. So now we have over 7,000 people on her blog declaring that this company is bad...well damn!

I agree that's a bad result - but the company brought that response on themselves, too, by the way they handled things. Ellen may have failed to read the fine print and thereby violated the contract she had with the company, but in what alien universe does that give the company the right to show up at a third party's home with an armed escort without even attempting to resolve the issue by some other means first?

I've had neighbors in the past who let their stereos get out of hand, and I went to them myself and talked to them to ask them to keep it down. Never once did I end up having to call the police, nor did I have any difficulties with the neighbors; lots of times, people don't realize there's a problem unless it's brought to their attention, and it isn't necessary to call in the "authorities" (read: "hired muscle") unless other avenues fail. Rationalize it, excuse it, whitewash it any way one likes, bringing in that hired muscle as a first resort without making any effort at an alternative resolution demonstrates a complete lack of respect for other people, and a vastly exaggerated belief in one's own importance. AFAIAC, if M&M don't have the balls to treat other people with a bit of respect, they shouldn't expect to be treated any other way in return. Nobody else is bound in any fashion by any "company policy," no matter who the company is; they overstepped the bounds of behavior, so they can just live with the backlash. It's unfortunate that innocent parties will also have to live with that backlash, but you know what? Unmitigated stupidity has a way of turning out that way most times. Too bad nobody ever learns from history.

As far as the police "just doing their job," part of doing that job is knowing when it's not necessary. Even if M&M didn't understand the concept of trying to work things out without legal intervention, the police should have; hell, half the damn time, they'll suggest that in violent domestic disputes where it's patently obvious it's not going to work - so, what makes a case like this any different?

 

[Harley]

No, they really, really didn't. They could have switched the "adoption" papers;

on whos authority?

they could have checked out the family to see if they were "acceptable";

which would have viloated their part of the agreement

they could have done a lot of things, but what they actually did is make a big show of doing what they wanted to do.

If they did that for one family, then they would be expected to do that for anyone who wants it done. That's why they dont have that policy. Naturally, it would be nice for them to do something like that, but thats too much of an "effort" on their part. They shouldn't be held responsible for Ellen not keeping up her end of the deal. They're doing their job, and as heart-wrenching as that may be, it's what they're supposed to do.

Edit:

I agree that's a bad result - but the company brought that response on themselves, too, by the way they handled things. Ellen may have failed to read the fine print and thereby violated the contract she had with the company, but in what alien universe does that give the company the right to show up at a third party's home with an armed escort without even attempting to resolve the issue by some other means first?

does it say somewhere that they didnt try other means first?

As far as the police "just doing their job," part of doing that job is knowing when it's not necessary. Even if M&M didn't understand the concept of trying to work things out without legal intervention, the police should have; hell, half the damn time, they'll suggest that in violent domestic disputes where it's patently obvious it's not going to work - so, what makes a case like this any different?

before you jumping on the police for this, know that there is so much to so many situations that you dont ever see or hear, but people pass judgements on it anyway. my dad has been an officer my whole life. he comes home and tells me all sorts of things i never knew happened. its not fair to just assume when not all the information is present

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

on whos authority?

Since the "adoption" company is taking it on themselves to assume authority over every other aspect, why not that one? Oh, wait - that would actually be reasonable...

which would have viloated their part of the agreement

In what way? Supposedly, that same agreement confers upon them the right to reclaim the dog and re-place it, so exactly which part of their agreement would that violate? Other than the one where they get to play god...

If they did that for one family, then they would be expected to do that for anyone who wants it done.

And that's a problem because? If their sole interest is in finding a good home for the dog, it shouldn't matter. I know people who are volunteers who make more of an effort than this.

That's why they dont have that policy. Naturally, it would be nice for them to do something like that, but thats too much of an "effort" on their part.

Bingo...

They shouldn't be held responsible for Ellen not keeping up her end of the deal.

I don't hold them responsible for that. I do hold them responsible for the idiotic manner in which they handled the situation.

does it say somewhere that they didnt try other means first?

Apparently, they consider the family an automatic reject because of the children's ages (and the company owner was quoted that she "doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog",) so what do you suppose?

before you jumping on the police for this, know that there is so much to so many situations that you dont ever see or hear, but people pass judgements on it anyway. my dad has been an officer my whole life. he comes home and tells me all sorts of things i never knew happened. its not fair to just assume when not all the information is present

Look, no offense to you or your dad, but not all of us live in a vacuum. Between the friends, family, casual acquaintances, and, yeah, enemies I have on both sides of the law, not to mention the years I've spent working in places you'd rather not even know exist, I've had more than my fill of opportunities to see how the law really works. Mostly, it don't work for any but a small select percentage of folks. I'm not blaming the cops for this situation, just saying that they've got better things to do, and maybe they ought to be doing them instead of jacking around with this nonsense.

 

[nerd4hire]

This issue is getting more interesting as more information leaks out. Here's some of the stuff I'm hearing, rumor and fact.

From Mutts and Mums side -

* They're getting death threats - Believable. The threats have been anonymous delivered by phone and email. Dog-napper Martina Batkis made a complaint with the police.

* Ellen threatened to take the issue to the media - Not believable. I've seen the transcript from Ellen's lawyer. It's a response to previous threats to go to the media from Mutts and Mums. It's more like "go for it".

* They're not giving Iggy back. They say they won't be bullied.

* Ellen has transfered ownership of 2 previous dogs from different pet rescue organizations.

* There's another clause in the contract saying the dog can't go to a home where there are children younger than 13. The 2 girls are 11 and 12.

From Ellen's Side -

* This is from a message board so take it for what it's worth.

Mutts and Moms found out about Iggy's new home when his new owners filled out an online application for adoption after receiving him from Ellen. In other words, they notified the organization of the change, which is exactly the opposite of what Mutts and Moms is claiming. They claim they were never notified of the change in homes, and that is why they removed him from the new home. This appears to be a lie. Mutts and Moms received the application, then called Ellen to confirm the information. When the information was confirmed, Mutts and Moms contacted the new family to set up what they called "a home visit" to ensure that Iggy was in a good home. The family agreed wholeheartedly, having no inkling of what was to come. The behavior of their representative when arriving at the home can only be characterized as immature, irresponsible, and certainly uncaring about the people involved in this situation and the dog. The organization never changed the dog's legal registration into Ellen's name, as is required by their own contract with an adopter. That is the only reason they were able to remove the dog from his new family. So, even though their rules were followed (not to the letter since it was the new family that contacted them about Iggy's new home, not Ellen), they ignored their own contractual obligation, and in doing so were able to tear this animal away from a loving home.

* Other message board allegations - Mutts and Mums has a history of getting complaints.

- Mutts and Mugs is a commercial business ($150 a dog), hiding behind charitable status for a tax exempt status and other perks. (This may be true the 2 women involved in the dog-napping are referred to in media reports as "owners" of the business)

* Other Pet rescue organizations deal with this sort of thing all the time. They usually just contact the new owners. (This appears to be true according to three organizations I've seen discussing the issue.)

* Mutts and mugs threatened to get the media and police involved. It is therefore them who are responsible for the resulting media storm.

* The clause in the contract saying and 11 and 12 year olds can't have a dog is hidden, stupid, and not present in contracts from other pet rescue organizations.